Copenhagen Copenhagen Copenhagen by Michael Frayn Copenhagen is a play by Michael Frayn, based around an event that occurred in Copenhagen in 1941, a meeting between the physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. It debuted in London in 1998. Within the National Theatre in London, it ran for more than 300 performances, starring David Burke (Niels Bohr), Sara Kestelman (Margrethe Bohr), and Matthew Marsh (Werner Heisenberg). It opened on Broadway at the Royale Theatre on April 11, 2000 and ran for 326 performances. Directed by Michael Blakemore, it starred Philip Bosco (Niels Bohr), Michael Cumpsty (Werner Heisenberg), and Blair Brown (Margrethe Bohr). It won the Tony Award for Best Play, Best Featured Actress in a Play (Blair Brown), and Best Direction of a Play (Michael Blakemore). In 2002, the play was adapted as a film by Howard Davies, produced by the BBC and presented on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in the United States.

Historical Debate The meeting took place in September 1941 when Bohr and Heisenberg were 55 and 39, respectively. Heisenberg had worked with Bohr in Copenhagen for several years starting in 1924. Heisenberg historians remain divided over their own interpretations of the event, and the 1998 play put more attention on what had been a previously primarily scholarly discussion. A collection of historical essays provoked by the play was published in English in 2005.[1] Much of the initial “controversy” resulted from a 1956 letter Heisenberg sent to the journalist Robert Jungk after reading the German edition of Jungk’s book Brighter than a Thousand Suns (1956). In the letter, Heisenberg described how he had come to Copenhagen to discuss with Bohr his moral objections toward scientists working on nuclear weapons, but how he had failed to articulate this clearly before the conversation came to a halt.

Jungk published an extract from the letter in the Danish edition of the book in 1956 which, out of context, made it look as if Heisenberg was claiming to have purposely derailed the German bomb project on moral grounds. (The letter’s whole text shows Heisenberg was careful not to claim this.)[2] Bohr was outraged after reading this extract in his copy of the book, feeling that this was false and that the 1941 meeting had proven to him that Heisenberg was quite happy with producing nuclear weapons for Germany. After the play inspired numerous scholarly and media debates over the 1941 meeting, the Niels Bohr Archive in Copenhagen released to the public all heretofore sealed documents related to the meeting, a move intended mostly to settle historical arguments over what they contained. Among the documents were the unsent letters Bohr drafted to Heisenberg in 1957 about Jungk’s book and other topics.[3] These drafts proved to be significant in several respects.

First, they proved to be relatively consistent with Heisenberg’s own recollections of the meeting[4] given to Jungk in 1956, meaning that the course of the conversation can now be fairly well established. Both Bohr and Heisenberg agree that Heisenberg started the visit by stating to Bohr that nuclear weapons were now conceivable. As Heisenberg wrote to Jungk, “This talk probably started with my question as to whether or not it was right for physicists to devote themselves in wartime to the uranium problem — as there was the possibility that progress in this sphere could lead to grave consequences in the technique of the war.” Bohr confirms this by writing “It had to make a very strong impression on me that at the very outset you stated that you felt certain that the war, if it lasted sufficiently long, would be decided with atomic weapons.” Heisenberg repeated his convictions on the technical feasibility of building nuclear weapons.

As Heisenberg recalled: He [Bohr] replied as far as I can remember with a counter-question, “Do you really think that uranium fission could be utilized for the construction of weapons?” I may have replied: “I know that this is in principle possible, but it would require a terrific technical effort, which, one can only hope, cannot be realized in this war.

Bohr was shocked by my reply” Bohr’s draft letters are consistent with this: “I did not respond to this at all, but as you perhaps regarded this as an expression of doubt, you related how in the preceding years you had devoted yourself almost exclusively to the question and were quite certain that it could be done,” [This point is of interest, because it is at odds with the view of some that Heisenberg’s miscalculations had led him to conclude, erroneously, that atomic weapons were not feasible.] According to Bohr’s later notes, Heisenberg then told Bohr that he had not come to discuss the technical aspects of the potential weapons: Heisenberg said explicitly that he did not wish to enter into technical details but that Bohr should understand that he knew what he was talking about as he had spent 2 years working exclusively on this question. Unfortunately, because of Heisenberg’s concerns about being monitored—his discussion of any aspects of the nuclear efforts to someone in an occupied country would have been illegal—his discussion was cryptic.

Indeed, Bohr’s letters note that Heisenberg spoke “in vague terms” from which Bohr was only able to get an “impression” about Heisenberg’s efforts. Bohr wrote of this: I listened to this without speaking since [a] great matter for mankind was at issue in which, despite our personal friendship, we had to be regarded as representatives of two sides engaged in mortal combat. That my silence and gravity, as you write in the letter, could be taken as an expression of shock at your reports that it was possible to make an atomic bomb is a quite peculiar misunderstanding, which must be due to the great tension in your own mind. From the day three years earlier when I realized that slow neutrons could only cause fission in Uranium 235 and not 238, it was of course obvious to me that a bomb with certain effect could be produced by separating the uraniums. In June 1939 I had even given a public lecture in Birmingham about uranium fission, where I talked about the effects of such a bomb but of course added that the technical preparations would be so large that one did not know how soon they could be overcome.

If anything in my behaviour could be interpreted as shock, it did not derive from such reports but rather from the news, as I had to understand it, that Germany was participating vigorously in a race to be the first with atomic weapons.[5] This circumspect discussion, combined with Bohr’s shocked reaction to it, apparently cut off the discussion between the two. Thus, the Bohr letters cannot resolve the question, posed by the Copenhagen play, of what Heisenberg had wanted—but failed—to convey to Bohr. The Bohr letters are significant here, because they do eliminate some of the more sinister motives that had been postulated.

For example, in a 1998 book, Heisenberg and the Nazi atomic bomb project: a study in German culture[6] Paul Lawrence Rose had speculated that Heisenberg had visited Bohr as “an intelligence-gathering mission.” However, the release of Bohr’s letters disprove that claim, showing that Heisenberg had not come to elicit information from Bohr, and did not even want to discuss the technical issues of building a bomb: Heisenberg said explicitly that he did not wish to enter into technical details but that Bohr should understand that he knew what he was talking about as he had spent 2 years working exclusively on this question. This shows that Heisenberg wanted to move the discussion into another area of nuclear weapons, not the technology. This passage also appears to counter the arguments of some Heisenberg critics (such as Rose and Bernstein) that Heisenberg’s errors in 1940 had mistakenly led him to conclude that building nuclear weapons was not possible. Finally, the 1957 Bohr draft letters, written 16 years after the meeting itself, suggest a conflict between Bohr and Heisenberg.

However, Heisenberg’s own letter to his wife, written on the eve of his departure from Copenhagen, provides no hint of a fracture. In it, he related his final evening with Bohr as very pleasant and unremarkable: “Today I was once more, with Weizsaecker, at Bohr’s. In many ways this was especially nice, the conversation revolved for a large part of the evening around purely human concerns, Bohr was reading aloud, I played a Mozart Sonata (a-Major).”[7] In a March 2006 interview[8] Ivan Supek, one of Heisenberg’s students and friends, commented that “Copenhagen is a bad play” and that “Frayn mixed up some things”. Supek also claimed that actually Weizsäcker was the main figure of the meeting. Allegedly, “Heisenberg and Weizsäcker came to Bohr wearing German army uniforms. Weizsäcker tried to persuade Bohr to mediate for peace between Great Britain and Germany and Heisenberg practically completely relied on his political judgement”. Supek received these details in a confidential conversation with Margrethe who thought he would never make them public.

Supek however felt it was “his duty to announce these facts so that future generations can know the truth about the Bohr – Heisenberg meeting”. Supek’s statements about Bohr’s recollection of “the Bohr – Heisenberg meeting” itself mixes up the visit, and in so doing, suggests the reason why the meeting did not achieve its purpose. Because Heisenberg could only visit Bohr in occupied Denmark on behalf of the German government, Heisenberg was obliged to make public lectures on behalf of the Government which were monitored by German government officials. Heisenberg had hoped to convey his concerns later during private discussions with Bohr. Heisenberg’s contemporaneous letters to his wife and later correspondence with Jungkt place the private conversation on Wednesday evening during a walk at Bohr’s house away from Weizsäcker.[9] (“This talk then took place on an evening walk in the city district near Ny-Carlsberg,”)[10] (“Late at night I walked under a clear and starry sky through the city, darkened, to Bohr.”).

That Supek stated that Margrethe believed that Weizsäcker was present and that Bohr recalled this private meeting as taking place “in my room at the Institute”, [11] where Heisenberg and Weizsäcker had made their public statements may suggest that Bohr blurred two events and did not distinguish between the public statements Heisenberg made and the private message Heisenberg hoped to convey to Bohr later that evening at Bohr’s house. Plot Synopsis Heisenberg – “…No one understands my trip to Copenhagen. Time and time again I’ve explained it. To Bohr himself, and Margrethe. To interrogators and intelligence officers, to journalists and historians. The more I’ve explained, the deeper the uncertainty has become. Well, I shall be happy to make one more attempt.” Three characters, Werner Heisenberg, Niels Bohr and Bohr’s wife Margrethe, attempt to answer the question of the piece which Margrethe poses in the first line of the play, “Why did he [Heisenberg] come to Copenhagen?” They spend the remainder of the two-act drama presenting, debating and rejecting theories that may answer that question.

Along the way, Heisenberg and Bohr “draft” several versions of their 1941 exchange, arguing about the ramifications of each potential version of their meeting and the motives behind it. They discuss the idea of nuclear power and its control, the rationale behind building or not building an atomic bomb, the uncertainty of the past and the inevitability of the future as embodiments of themselves acting as particles drifting through the atom that is Copenhagen. Characters In most dramatic works where the characters are based on real people, there is a point at which the character deviates from the real person. Michael Frayn works to keep this distinction as small as possible. Having studied memoirs and letters and other historical records of the two physicists, Frayn feels confident in claiming that “The actual words spoken by [the] characters are entirely their own.” With that in mind, the character descriptions apply to both the representative characters as well as the physicists themselves. There is a great amount known about all of the primary characters presented in Copenhagen; the following includes those bits of information which are directly relevant and referenced in the work itself.[12] Werner Heisenberg was born in 1901 in Würzburg, Germany.

The son of a university professor, Heisenberg grew up in with an intense emphasis on academics, but was exposed to the destruction that World War I dealt to Germany at a rather young age. He married Elisabeth Schumacher, also the child of a professor, and they had seven children. He received his doctorate in 1923 from the physicist Arnold Sommerfeld, and went to Copenhagen to study quantum mechanics with Niels Bohr in 1924, when he was 22, and replaced Bohr’s assistant, H. A. Kramers. In 1926, The University of Leipzig offered him the opportunity to become Germany’s youngest full professor. Heisenberg is best known for his “Uncertainty Principle,” (translated from the German Ungenauigkeit [inexactness] or Unschärfe [lack of sharpness] Relation, which was later changed to Unbestimmtheit meaning “indeterminate.”) In 1927, he and Bohr presented the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. During the Second World War, Heisenberg worked for Germany, researching atomic technology and heading their nuclear reactor program.

After the war, his involvement with the Nazis earned him certain notoriety in the world of physicists, mainly due to the fact that he could have given Hitler the means to produce and use nuclear arms. He continued his research until his death in 1976 in Münich. Niels Bohr was born in 1885, making him 38 when Heisenberg first came to work with him. He married Margrethe Norlund in 1912 in Copenhagen and together they had six sons, two of whom died. Harry Lustig notes his biographies that “Most of the world’s great theoretical physicists… spent periods of their lives at Bohr’s Institute.” For this reason, along with some fairly fundamental theories on quantum mechanics, Bohr was referred to as “The Pope,” a title which Heisenberg actually uses in the play. Before the war, his research was instrumental in nuclear research, some of which led to the building of the bomb. During the war, however, Bohr was living in occupied Denmark and somewhat restricted in his research; he escaped to Sweden in 1943, just before an SS sweep which would have incriminated him through his Jewish heritage.

In America, he worked in Los Alamos on the atomic bomb until the end of the war. He died in 1962 and was survived by his wife, Margrethe. Margrethe Bohr, known later in her life as Dronning or “Queen” Margrethe, was born in 1890 in Denmark. She was closely involved in her husband’s work; he would commonly bounce ideas off of her, trying to explain them in “plain language.” She died in 1984, survived by several of her children. Her son Hans wrote, “My mother was the natural and indispensable centre. Father knew how much mother meant to him and never missed an opportunity to show his gratitude and love…. Her opinions were his guidelines in daily affairs,” and this relationship shows in Michael Frayn’s dialogue. Genre Copenhagen cannot be labelled simply as a comedy or tragedy; the lack of a protagonist and direct conflict prevents this in large part.

David Rush explores a sub-genre of theatre, a later hybrid form known as “drama,” which he describes as a piece which cannot be specifically categorized as a tragedy, but which he notes involves “serious people going about serious business in a serious way.” Seeing as the characters in Copenhagen are already dead, they cannot suffer any tragic fall; though there is definite wit in the arguments, it is taken in a very serious light seeing as it regards subjects like war, fear and nuclear arms. It is most nearly a “drama,” but works in many ways as an expository piece in the manner it presents information to the audience. Style The construction of the plot is non-linear, seeing as it does not exist in time and space. Sometimes one character will not notice that there are other people in the space, and speak as if to no one. The world that Frayn presents is outside of our conceptions as audience members, simply by virtue of the fact that no one attending the play has ever died. So the world in which Copenhagen is based is somewhere between heaven and an atom. It can also be thought to exist “inside the heads” of the characters present.

It is a subjective world, taking and manipulating history, picking apart some events and mashing others together to better compare them. The characters are all plagued by some form of guilt or another, particularly in reference to the atomic bomb, and they are trapped in this world, doomed to forever speculate on that evening in Copenhagen in 1941 to determine how the world may have been changed. These are all traits of the artistic style known as Expressionism. In his preface to A Dream Play, August Strindberg notes that in these worlds, “everything is possible and probable. Time and space do not exist. Working with… real events as a background, the imagination spins out its threads of thoughts and weaves them into new patterns.” Copenhagen is an embodiment of these principles. Reoccurring Images and Motifs Because the concepts in physics and politics are at times very complicated or very abstract, Frayn uses several controlling images to better relate certain ideas to his audience.

• Skiing and Table-Tennis – These two activities are referred to as a pastime of Bohr and Heisenberg’s, and both demonstrate the competition between the two (representative of national competition.) They are also used to suggest Heisenberg’s speed and recklessness which contrasts Bohr’s caution and tediousness. • Invisible Straight – An anecdote in which Bohr managed to bluff himself in a game of poker by betting on a straight that he thought he had, but he really did not . This principle is applied to nuclear weaponry, suggesting that nations will act differently when they think that an opponent can produce nuclear arms, whether or not the opponent can. • Cap-Pistols, Land Mines and Nuclear Reactors – These fall into the Toy vs. Weapon theme and once again presents anecdotes of Bohr and Heisenberg’s lives. Their fascination in playing with the new toy blinds them to the danger that it poses. • Bomb – The term “bomb” appears as a literal looming image in many cases, but it is used figuratively in a couple of instances, as if it should be a joke, but with such grave implications that it cannot be found funny.

(In example, Heisenberg refers to a “bomb having gone off” in Bohr’s head .) • Christian Reaching for the Life-Buoy – Christian was one of Bohr’s sons, who tragically drowned while he and Bohr were out sailing . The phrase “Christian reaches for the life-buoy” appears several times during the play, and every time, the characters seem to hold their breath in the hope that this time, Christian will survive. Bohr had concluded that they would have both drowned had he jumped in to save his son, and this presents an idea of futile heroics, particularly with reference to Heisenberg and what should happen if he were to resist Hitler’s rule . • “Another Draft” – Whenever the characters conclude that an interpretation of their 1941 meeting is incorrect, they call for “another draft.” Language Though the dialogue does not contradict logic, it cannot be called realistic in the strictest sense.

One character’s line might fade into the next, as though the second person knew exactly what he was going to say; sometimes a character will slip into a memory and partially relive a former or younger self in a monologue; and over the course of the show, there is a definite ambiguity as to whether they are speaking to one another or to the audience. The play was originally written in English, but the real people in the exchange may have had this conversation in Danish or German. But even with translation in mind, Frayn defends that the words in the script are those that the characters would actually say. In his post-script, he writes, “If this needs any justification, I can only appeal to Heisenberg himself.” Understandably, Frayn needs to present the characters in an interesting and dramatic light, as well as depicting a setting that no living person has visited, so the accuracy of such dialogue is subject to dwindle by degrees. Plain language and scientific language both operate in this play. There are several instances when the two physicists start speaking too scientifically for many people to understand, and one of them will remark that they must revert to plain language, to explain it in a way that Margrethe will understand.

Even for this effort though, criticism arose about the complexity of the play and the difficulty for viewers to comprehend. A writer for The Commonweal commented on the Broadway premiere, saying that “the play’s relentless cerebral forays can… be frustrating.” London Premiere – 1998 Copenhagen opened in the National Theatre in London and ran for more than 300 performances, starring David Burke as Niels Bohr, Sara Kestelman as Margrethe Bohr, and Mattew Marsh as Werner Heisenberg. It was directed by Michael Blakemore. Broadway Opening – April 2000 Continuing under the direction of Michael Blakemore, it opened on Broadway at the Royale Theatre on April 11 and ran for 326 performances. Starring Philip Bosco as Bohr, Michael Cumpsty as Heisenberg and Blair Brown as Margrethe, it went on to win the Tony Award for Best Play, along with two others for Best Featured Actress in a Play (Blair Brown), and Best Direction of a Play (Michael Blakemore).

But even for its success, Frayn admitted in an article that “A number of commentators expressed misgivings about the whole enterprise .” Several critics noted that it was heavy with scientific dialogue, a little too heavy for the common audience. Though a writer from Physics World hailed it as “brilliant theatre ,” a Charles Spencer, of the Daily Telegraph, wrote, “I felt that my brain was being stretched to breaking point — well beyond breaking point, in fact.” TV Movie – 2002 The play was adapted as a television movie in 2002, with Daniel Craig as Heisenberg, Stephen Rea as Niels Bohr, and Francesca Annis as Margrethe Bohr. The movie substantially cuts down the script of the play, eliminating several recurring themes, and most of the material that established the community of scientists in Copenhagen. It also abandons the abstract staging of the theatrical version in favour of being set in the city of Copenhagen, in Bohr’s old house.

Recent revivals The play was most recently revived at the New Vic Theatre in Staffordshire with John O’Mahony as Niels Bohr, Jamie Hinde as Heisenberg and Deborah Maclaren as Margrethe Bohr. It was directed by James Dacre. Previously, the play was revived at the Royal Lyceum Theatre in Edinburgh, with Tom Mannion as Niels Bohr, Sally Edwards as Margrether Bohr, and Owen Oakeshott as Werner Heisenberg. It was directed by Tony Cownie. 1998 Evening Standard Award for Best Play Drama Desk Award for Best New Play New York Drama Critics’ Circle Best Play Tony Award for Best Play Prix Molière Much of the above is based on Biographies of Persons in Copenhagen, compiled by Harry Lustig Bibliography Cassidy, David C. Uncertainty : the life and science of Werner Heisenberg. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, NY. 1992. Frayn, Michael. Copenhagen. New York, New York. Anchor Books: Random House, Inc. 2000. Lustig, Harry.

“Biographies of Persons in Copenhagen.” City University of New York Graduate Center: American Social History Project. Rush, David. A Student Guide to Play Analysis. Southern Illinois Printing Press, 2005. Carbondale, IL Spencer, Charles. review of Copenhagen in The Daily Telegraph, in The Complete Review. Accessed 2-25-09. Ziman, John. review of Copenhagen in Physics World, in The Complete Review. Accessed 2-25-09. Zoglin, Richard, review of Copenhagen in Time, in The Complete Review. Accessed 2-25-09. Copenhagen by Michael Frayn and Copenhagen Symposium Copenhagen by Michael Frayn and Copenhagen Symposium The Niels Bohr archives promise to release within a month "all documents in its possession, either written or dictated by Niels Bohr, pertaining specifically to the meeting between Bohr and Heisenberg in September 1941. " Michael Frayn's play Copenhagen based on the uncertainties surrounding the 1941 meeting between physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in German-occupied Copenhagen, will appear in Chicago in February.

This production is staged at the Shubert Theatre in collaboration with Broadway in Chicago. Court Theatre; 773/753-4472. (no tickets sold at this number) Tickets are sold by Ticketmaster 312 902 1400 for the production at the Shubert Theater in Chicago, 22 Monroe. Tickets price range: $22-$65 on the University of Chicago campus. Court Theater has arranged the Symposium to accompany the production of the play as part of the "We're taking the Classics" Symposium Series. Moderator: Doug Duncan Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of Chicago Panel: Peter Freund, Physics and Enrico Fermi Institite, University of Chicago Joseph Masco, Anthropology and Social Sciences, University of Chicago Albert Wattenberg, Physics, University of Illinois The attendance of the Symposium is free of charge.

For more information at Court Theater contact Roger Smart, rsmart@uchicago.edu or 773.702.8874 The Museum is located on the University of Chicago Campus at 1155 East 58th Street 773-702-9514 - General Information About: Copenhagen (play) About: Copenhagen (play) An Entity of Type : written work , from Named Graph : , within Data Space : dbpedia.org Copenhagen is a play by Michael Frayn, based around an event that occurred in Copenhagen in 1941, a meeting between the physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. It premiered in London in 1998 at the National Theatre, running for more than 300 performances, starring David Burke (Niels Bohr), Sara Kestelman (Margrethe Bohr), and Matthew Marsh (Werner Heisenberg).In 2002, the play was adapted as a film by Howard Davies, produced by the BBC and presented on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in the United States.

Property abstract Copenhague est une pièce de théâtre de Michael Frayn basée sur la rencontre de 1941 entre Niels Bohr et Werner Heisenberg, dans la ville de Copenhague. La première de la pièce a été donnée à Londres en 1998 ; elle a gagné le Tony Award for Best Play en 2000. (fr) Kopenhagen (im Original: Copenhagen) ist ein Schauspiel in zwei Akten von Michael Frayn. Das Drei-Personen-Stück basiert auf dem historischen Treffen der beiden Physiker Werner Heisenberg und Niels Bohr sowie dessen Frau Margrethe 1941 im durch Deutschland besetzten Kopenhagen. Anhand dieses Treffens thematisiert Frayn Fragen nach der Verantwortung der Wissenschaft sowie möglicher Interpretationen der Vergangenheit. Er löste damit eine historische Debatte über die Rolle Heisenbergs im Nuklearprogramm des Dritten Reichs aus, dem so genannten Uranprojekt.

Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, der Heisenberg 1941 begleitete und auch bei den Gesprächen zumindest zeitweise anwesend war, kommt in dem Stück nicht vor. (de) Copenhagen is a play by Michael Frayn, based around an event that occurred in Copenhagen in 1941, a meeting between the physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. It premiered in London in 1998 at the National Theatre, running for more than 300 performances, starring David Burke (Niels Bohr), Sara Kestelman (Margrethe Bohr), and Matthew Marsh (Werner Heisenberg). It opened on Broadway at the Royale Theatre on 11 April 2000 and ran for 326 performances. Directed by Michael Blakemore, it starred Philip Bosco (Niels Bohr), Michael Cumpsty (Werner Heisenberg), and Blair Brown (Margrethe Bohr). It won the Tony Award for Best Play, Best Featured Actress in a Play, Blair Brown, and Best Direction of a Play (Michael Blakemore).

In 2002, the play was adapted as a film by Howard Davies, produced by the BBC and presented on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in the United States. (en) Copenhague (en inglés original: Copenhagen) es una obra de teatro del autor británico Michael Frayn. (es) 『コペンハーゲン 』(Copenhagen) は、マイケル・フレインの戯曲。1998年、ロンドンにて初演。2000年にトニー賞を受賞。日本初演は2001年、新国立劇場にて。 (ja) Kopenhagen is een stuk van de Engelse toneelschrijver Michael Frayn gebaseerd op een ontmoeting tussen de Deense natuurkundige Niels Bohr en de Duitse natuurkundige Werner Heisenberg in bezet Kopenhagen in 1941. Er is lange tijd veel onduidelijkheid en speculatie geweest over het precieze verloop van deze ontmoeting.

Heisenberg stond aan het hoofd van Duits onderzoek naar atoomsplitsing, en Bohr was op de hoogte van het feit dat er aan geallieerde zijde interesse was in het ontwikkelen van een atoomsplijtingswapen. Frayn heeft een stuk geschreven waarin begrippen uit deze natuurkunde, zoals het "onzekerheidsprincipe" en "dualiteit" van botsende deeltjes - dan wel golven - gespiegeld worden in de onzekerheid over deze ontmoeting en de tweeslachtige bedoelingen van twee botsende persoonlijkheden.In de uitvoering van het National Theatre in London beleefde het meer dan 300 voorstellingen vanaf 1998, met David Burke (Niels Bohr), Sara Kestelman (Margrethe Bohr), en Mattew Marsh (Werner Heisenberg).

Daarna opende het op Broadway en had daar 326 voorstellingen in de regie van Michael Blake, en won een groot aantal prijzen, waaronder de "Tony Award" als Best Play.

(nl) 《哥本哈根》（英文：Copenhagen）是英国当代著名剧作家及小说家迈克尔·弗莱恩所写的戏剧。三位主角的灵魂在天堂会面，通过对话和追忆的表现方式，讲诉了1941年9月，德国物理学家维尔纳·海森堡前往已被纳粹德国占领的丹麦首都哥本哈根，与他的导师，著名物理学家尼尔斯·玻尔会面的故事。戏剧借用量子力学的不确定原理，探讨了这次会面的多种可能性。本剧涉及量子力学、不确定性原理、量子力学的哥本哈根诠释、第二次世界大战、纳粹德国的核武器计划、曼哈顿工程等。本剧于1998年在英国伦敦国家剧院首次演出，表演了超过300场。2001年4月11日起在百老汇演出了326场。本剧获得托尼奖最佳戏剧、最佳女主角和最佳导演奖。2002年，由BBC制作，Howard Davies导演的本剧同名电视电影在美国PBS电视台播出。 (zh) Physics, Politics, WWII, Memory, Perspective (en)

 comment Copenhague est une pièce de théâtre de Michael Frayn basée sur la rencontre de 1941 entre Niels Bohr et Werner Heisenberg, dans la ville de Copenhague.

La première de la pièce a été donnée à Londres en 1998 ; elle a gagné le Tony Award for Best Play en 2000. (fr) Copenhague (en inglés original: Copenhagen) es una obra de teatro del autor británico Michael Frayn.

(es) 『コペンハーゲン 』(Copenhagen) は、マイケル・フレインの戯曲。1998年、ロンドンにて初演。2000年にトニー賞を受賞。日本初演は2001年、新国立劇場にて。 (ja) 《哥本哈根》（英文：Copenhagen）是英国当代著名剧作家及小说家迈克尔·弗莱恩所写的戏剧。三位主角的灵魂在天堂会面，通过对话和追忆的表现方式，讲诉了1941年9月，德国物理学家维尔纳·海森堡前往已被纳粹德国占领的丹麦首都哥本哈根，与他的导师，著名物理学家尼尔斯·玻尔会面的故事。戏剧借用量子力学的不确定原理，探讨了这次会面的多种可能性。本剧涉及量子力学、不确定性原理、量子力学的哥本哈根诠释、第二次世界大战、纳粹德国的核武器计划、曼哈顿工程等。本剧于1998年在英国伦敦国家剧院首次演出，表演了超过300场。2001年4

月11日起在百老汇演出了326场。本剧获得托尼奖最佳戏剧、最佳女主角和最佳导演奖。2002年，由BBC制作，Howard Davies导演的本剧同名电视电影在美国PBS电视台播出。 (zh) Copenhagen is a play by Michael Frayn, based around an event that occurred in Copenhagen in 1941, a meeting between the physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg.

It premiered in London in 1998 at the National Theatre, running for more than 300 performances, starring David Burke (Niels Bohr), Sara Kestelman (Margrethe Bohr), and Matthew Marsh (Werner Heisenberg).In 2002, the play was adapted as a film by Howard Davies, produced by the BBC and presented on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in the United States. (en) Kopenhagen (im Original: Copenhagen) ist ein Schauspiel in zwei Akten von Michael Frayn.Das Drei-Personen-Stück basiert auf dem historischen Treffen der beiden Physiker Werner Heisenberg und Niels Bohr sowie dessen Frau Margrethe 1941 im durch Deutschland besetzten Kopenhagen. Anhand dieses Treffens thematisiert Frayn Fragen nach der Verantwortung der Wissenschaft sowie möglicher Interpretationen der Vergangenheit. Er löste damit eine historische Debatte über die Rolle Heisenbergs im Nuklearprogramm des Dritten Reichs aus, dem so genannten Uranprojekt.

Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, der Heisenberg 1941 begleitete und auch bei den Gesprächen zumindest zeitweise anwesend war, kommt in dem Stück nicht vor. (de) Kopenhagen is een stuk van de Engelse toneelschrijver Michael Frayn gebaseerd op een ontmoeting tussen de Deense natuurkundige Niels Bohr en de Duitse natuurkundige Werner Heisenberg in bezet Kopenhagen in 1941.Er is lange tijd veel onduidelijkheid en speculatie geweest over het precieze verloop van deze ontmoeting. Heisenberg stond aan het hoofd van Duits onderzoek naar atoomsplitsing, en Bohr was op de hoogte van het feit dat er aan geallieerde zijde interesse was in het ontwikkelen van een atoomsplijtingswapen.

(nl) Copenhagen : Visit Tallahassee Local Community Visual & Performing Arts Description: An adaptation of the popular Michael Frayn stage-play based around a strange trip the German physicist Werner Heisenberg made to Copenhagen in 1941 to see his Danish counterpart Niels Bohr. Old friends and close colleagues, they had revolutionized atomic physics in the 1920s with their work together. But now the world had changed and the two men were on opposite sides in a world war. The meeting was fraught with danger and embarrassment and ended in disaster. In Frayn’s play, Heisenberg meets Bohr and his wife Margrethe once again to look for the answers and to work out how we can ever know why we do what we do. 2002 / 120 Minutes / England For more information, call 850-386-4404 or go to . John Fraser Copenhagen (TV Movie 2002) - IMDb IMDb There was an error trying to load your rating for this title. Some parts of this page won't work property. Please reload or try later. X Beta I'm Watching This! Keep track of everything you watch; tell your friends.

Error A television adaptation of Michael Frayn 's celebrated and award-winning stage play about the meeting between physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in 1941 Copenhagen. At this time the... See full summary » Director: Famous Directors: From Sundance to Prominence From Christopher Nolan to Quentin Tarantino and every Coen brother in between, many of today's most popular directors got their start at the Sundance Film Festival . Here's a list of some of the biggest names to go from Sundance to Hollywood prominence. a list of 36 titles created 17 Feb 2014 a list of 25 titles created 11 months ago a list of 25 titles created 4 months ago a list of 43 titles created 3 months ago a list of 21 titles created 3 months ago Search for " Copenhagen " on Amazon.com Connect with IMDb Title: Copenhagen (TV Movie 2002) 7.5/10 Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below. You must be a registered user to use the IMDb rating plugin.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 5.5/10 X A man signs up as a driver for a group of criminals on a dangerous job. On the way to the hit the man hears the lottery numbers and realises he's got the winning ticket on him. However the ... See full summary » Director: Steve Green Two strangers become dangerously close after witnessing a deadly accident. Director: Roger Michell Sword of Honour (TV Movie 2001) Drama | War Guy Crouchback,heir to a declining English Roman Catholic family returns to England from Italy at the start of World War Two and joins the Royal Corps of Halberdiers,along with various ... See full summary » Director: Bill Anderson When the girl of your dreams is half your age, it's time to grow up. Director: Mark Raso Two men become entangled in a torrid love affair with the same woman. Pierre is Miriam's longtime lover. John is desperately searching for clues about his past when he and Miriam have a ...

See full summary » Director: Peter Sehr This film is based on true events that happened on Achill Island off the West coast of Ireland, in The Valley House. Director: Cathal Black A fading Hollywood star looks back at the days of his youth as he returns home from his best friend's funeral. Director: Baillie Walsh While researching his book In Cold Blood, writer Truman Capote develops a close relationship with convicted murderers Dick Hickock and Perry Smith. Director: Douglas McGrath Poetic biography of author Antoine de Saint-Exupéry. Director: Anand Tucker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7.1/10 X 14-year-old György's life is torn apart in World War II Hungary as he is sent to a concentration camp where he is forced to become a man, and learns to find happiness in the midst of hatred, and what it really means to be Jewish. Director: Lajos Koltai Edit Storyline A television adaptation of Michael Frayn 's celebrated and award-winning stage play about the meeting between physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg in 1941 Copenhagen.

At this time the young Heisenberg was leading a faltering German research program into nuclear energy, while the middle-aged and apparently isolated Bohr was in contact with allied agents, and still held a position of great influence in the nuclear physics research community. After the meeting the two men put different interpretations or impressions of why Heisenberg requested the meeting, and what he hoped to gain from it, a theme which mirrors the ambiguity of the "Copenhagen" interpretation widely used in quantum physics. Did Heisenberg go to the avuncular Bohr to seek his blessing for his role in nuclear research? Why did Heisenberg concentrate on the development of a nuclear reactor, and not perform the calculations which would show that a bomb could be made to work via a fast-neutron reaction in Uranium 235? ... Written by Simon Shearn 27 September 2002 (UK) See more » Also Known As: Did You Know? Trivia The original Broadway production of "Copenhagen" by Michael Frayn opened at the Royale Theater on April 11, 2000, ran for 326 performances and won the 2000 Tony Award for the Best Play.

Michael Frayn's script was used as the basis of the screenplay for the movie version. See more » Goofs When Bohr digresses on the fission chain reaction, he indicates that one fissioned uranium atom is enough to move a speck of dust, then "until eventually after, let's say eighty generations, two hundred and eighty specks of dust have been moved, enough specks of dust to constitute an entire city." Rather than 280, the number is 2^80, as the result of eighty doublings (indicating the rather important carat exponent symbol was left out of the script or omitted by the actor). The number reads as two to the eightieth power... about a trillion trillion. See more » Connections (United States) – See all my reviews (Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon.) Most viewers of this extraordinary play believe that it doesn't answer the question of why Werner Heisenberg came to Copenhagen in 1941 to visit his mentor Niels Bohr.

And this is true: playwright Michael Frayn does not give a definitive answer to that intriguing question. But he does give an interpretation. We must go to the "final draft" of their recapitulation of what happened--the "their" being the three of them, Heisenberg, Bohr and his wife Margrethe, who appear as ghosts of themselves in the now empty Bohr residence. In the climatic revisionist scene, instead of walking away from Heisenberg in the woods, Bohr contains his anger and confronts his one-time protégé. He tells Heisenberg to do the calculation to determine how much fissionable material (a "critical mass") would be necessary to sustain a chain reaction. Heisenberg had believed without doing the calculation that the amount was somewhere near a metric ton. As he does the calculation in his head he realizes that the amount would be much, much less, only 50 kilos. This changes everything because it made the bomb entirely possible. Frayn's point is that it is far better that Bohr did not tell Heisenberg to do the calculation because if he had, it is possible that Nazi Germany would have developed an atomic bomb under Heisenberg's direction.

But this does not answer the question of why Heisenberg came to Copenhagen. Margrethe has her own answer: he came to show himself off. The little man who is now the reigning theoretical physicist in Germany had come to stand tall and to let Bohr, who was half Jewish, know that he could save him from the Nazis. This is the "psychological" answer and it plays very well. Heisenberg, like most Germans felt humiliated by the defeat in the Great War and had suffered severely in the economic deprivations that followed. And like most Germans Heisenberg, who was not a Nazi, compromised his principles by acquiescing in Nazi rule because he believed that it would return Germany to "its rightful place" as an economic and military leader in the world. He came to Copenhagen in 1941 in triumph. His triumph, understandably, was not well received. The more blunt question of did Heisenberg expect to find out whether the Americans were making a bomb or to get Bohr to help with the German project is also answered in a psychological way. The answer is no, because he knew that Bohr would not help him even if he could.

As it turns out at the time Bohr had no knowledge of what the Allies were doing. The other question, a question that would haunt Heisenberg for the rest of his life, was did he delay the German bomb project in order to prevent the Nazis from acquiring the bomb--as he claimed--or was the fact that they were not able to develop a bomb just a matter of not having the ability? To this question playwright Frayn's answer is that Heisenberg would have developed the bomb if he had been able. This answer is the generally accepted one based on the historical evidence, part of which comes from some careless words from Heisenberg himself that were recorded by British intelligence after Heisenberg was captured and sent to England. What Frayn does so very well in his brilliant play is show us that Heisenberg's need to succeed and his need to feel national pride would not allow him to behave otherwise. The direction of this PBS production by Howard Davies relies heavily on an interesting device. Bohr's wife becomes an objectifying factor who is able to step back from the emotional situation and to see both men clearly and to guide the audience toward an understanding of their relationship.

Over the years, she and Bohr served as surrogate parents to Heisenberg. He was the little boy who came home to his parents in 1941 to say, Look at me. I am a great success. Only problem was his "success" could not be separated from the Nazi occupation of their country, and Heisenberg was too obtuse and insensitive to see that. In truth, Heisenberg was not entirely aware of his own motivation. He did not know why he came to Copenhagen. Neither did Bohr. But Margrathe did. An accompanying point to this idea is the story of Bohr bluffing Heisenberg and others during a poker game some years before. It appeared from the fall of the cards that it was extremely unlikely that Bohr had made a straight that would win the pot, and yet he kept on betting until all the others threw in, and then when he showed his hand, he had no straight. He had fooled himself. Frayn's position is that in believing he had come to Copenhagen for innocent reasons, Heisenberg was unconsciously fooling himself.

Furthermore the fact that he had not done the calculation was equivalent to Bohr's not looking back at his hole cards to see what he really had. This is not an easy play, but the ideas are presented in a clear manner so that any reasonably intelligent person can understand them. Frayn employs an elaborate metaphor involving Heisenberg's famous uncertainty principle to elucidate the relationship between Bohr and Heisenberg. They are particles that will collide: Heisenberg the elusive electron, neither here nor there, the very essence of uncertainty, Bohr the stolid neutron. Davies has the two circling and circling one another, even chasing one another, as in a dance while Margrathe watches. I found the play moving and ultimately cathartic as all great plays should be. Davies' direction and the sense of time and place greatly facilitated my enjoyment. And the acting by Stephen Rea (Bohr), Daniel Craig, and in particular, Francesca Annis, was outstanding. 26 of 27 people found this review helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes Copenhagen Monologue - YouTube Copenhagen Monologue Want to watch this again later? Sign in to add this video to a playlist. Need to report the video?

Sign in to report inappropriate content. Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. Uploaded on Aug 26, 2007 This was my friend Chris's audition video for Pace University in NY. The monologue is taken from the play "Copenhagen." "Copenhagen" is a play by Michael Frayn, based around an event that occurred in Copenhagen in 1941, a meeting between the physicists Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. I added the music and de-saturation effects in the hopes of complimenting but not overshadowing Chris's performance and giving it a more cinematic feel. Please do forgive the few brief creaks from the tripod and the fidgety camera operator who was just trying to get his shot! Category Frayn's Copenhagen — With Rea, Annis and Craig — to Air on PBS Sept. 29 | Playbill Frayn's Copenhagen — With Rea, Annis and Craig — to Air on PBS Sept.

29 By Andrew Gans Jul 29, 2002 Michael Frayn's Tony-winning play, Copenhagen, will be broadcast on PBS stations around the country this fall. The national air date is scheduled for Sept. 29 from 9 to 11 PM (check local listings). Michael Frayn's Tony-winning play, Copenhagen, will be broadcast on PBS stations around the country this fall. The national air date is scheduled for Sept. 29 from 9 to 11 PM (check local listings). Part of the acclaimed "PBS Hollywood Presents" series, the TV production of "Copenhagen" casts Stephen Rea , Francesca Annis and Daniel Craig in Frayn's opus about the real-life 1941 meeting between nuclear physicists Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr. Co-produced by KCET/Hollywood and BBC Four, "Copenhagen" began filming in London on March 3. Howard Davies directed Frayn's screenplay. "Copenhagen" marks the third entry in the "PBS Hollywood Presents" series, which began in April 2001 with "The Old Settler," starring sisters Phylicia Rashad and Debbie Allen.

Linda Lavin and Samantha Mathis appeared in the second offering, Donald Margulies ' "Collected Stories," and veteran actors Mary Tyler Moore and Dick Van Dyke are currently filming "The Gin Game" for a 2003 broadcast. Daniel Craig, now on screen in "Road to Perdition," co-starred opposite Angelina Jolie in "Lara Croft: Tomb Raider." Stephen Rea, who was nominated for an Academy Award in "The Crying Game," has also been in such films as "Pret-a-Porter," "Michael Collins," "The End of the Affair" and "On the Edge." Rea made his Broadway bow in Someone Who'll Watch Over Me, earning a Tony Award nomination for his performance. Francesca Annis received a BAFTA Award nomination for her work in "Reckless." Her other film credits include "Wives and Daughters," "Onegin" and "The Debt Collector." After a successful West End run, Copenhagen opened on Broadway in April 2000. The original New York company featured Philip Bosco, Michael Cumpsty and Blair Brown, who won a Best Featured Actress in a Play Tony Award for her work.

In addition to the 2001 Tony Award for Best Play, Copenhagen also won the Drama League and Drama Desk Awards for Best Play and the New York Drama Critics Circle Award for Best Foreign Play. Today’s Most Popular News:

Question: Which Michael Frayn play is based around a 1941 meeting between Werner Heisenberg and Niels Bohr?
Answer: Copenhagen